Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has held that pepper spray is a ‘dangerous weapon’ and could not, in the instant case, be used in exercise of private defence.

The court, pressed over by Justice M Nagaprasanna, made the observation while declining to quash a criminal case against a company director and his wife, accused of using pepper spray in a confrontation on account of exercising their right of private defence.

The court while dismissing the plea stated that “The 2nd petitioner (wife) could not have used pepper spray as private defence, as prima facie there was no imminent threat or danger posed to her life. Therefore, the case at hand would require investigation at the least."

The case stemmed from a dispute over property, where an injunction was obtained against the director to restrict his movements around certain walls and partitions. Allegedly, when employees of the party that secured the injunction attempted to seal the property gates with a wall, a confrontation ensued. It was during this altercation that the accused couple purportedly used pepper spray.

Senior Advocate Sandesh J. Chouta, representing the director and his wife (petitioners) argued that they were forced to use pepper spray and the same was employed solely in self-defense. It was further contended that their conduct was justified by virtue of Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was also highlighted that in the process, they sustained injuries and that the criminal complaint filed against them lacked merit, as they had also registered a complaint against the opposing party.

However, the opposing party, represented by AAG S.A.Ahmed, maintained that pepper spray should be classified as a deadly weapon under Section 324 of the IPC, thereby justifying the criminal case.

Addressing this contention, the court noted that "There is no determination by any law being laid down in this country with regard to usage of pepper spray being a dangerous weapon. But, a Court in the United States of America in PEOPLE v.SANDEL 84 N.Y.S. 3d 340 (N.Y. Sup.Ct.2018) has held that noxious chemical sprays, like pepper sprays, are dangerous weapons."

Further, the court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in ‘Ranveer Singh v State of M.P.’, and upheld the view that “Where the right of private defence is pleaded, the defence must be a reasonable and probable version satisfying the court that the harm caused by the accused was necessary for either warding off the attack or for forestalling the further reasonable apprehension from the side of the accused.”

“While considering whether the right of private defence is available to an accused, it is not relevant whether he may have a chance to inflict severe and mortal injury on the aggressor,” the court noted.

Therefore, in light of the court's observations, it was decreed that the petition deserved to be rejected was thus rejected.

The court further clarified that the observations made are solely for the purpose of considering the case under Section 482 of the CrPC and would not bind any other proceedings against the petitioners.

 

Cause Title: C Nagesh Narayan v State of Karnataka [WP No 10923 of 2023]